Yes, we can bring law and order to the Wild West Web

The setting-up of a Facebook tribute page to the gunman Raoul Moat gave voice to a wave of emotion from some that surprised and shocked Britain.

The expressions of support and sympathy for Moat’s actions and the vitriol directed towards the police and his ex-partner revealed an astonishing disregard for both social norms and the rule of law.

The sheer hatred underlying some of the messages rendered them both too offensive to print in mainstream media, and simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of the public.

Controversy: The setting-up of the Facebook group in tribute to Raoul Moat has shocked Britain

David Cameron captured this exactly when he said last week: ‘It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man.’

It is difficult not to be struck by how unequivocally the Prime Minister responded with his swift condemnation of the material on the site. We have almost become used to being a society where the default is ‘non-judgment’.

The last Government was particularly odd in this regard. It combined a desperate desire to avoid moral judgment with a hair-trigger ­willingness to pass all-encompassing legislation – sometimes to an absurd degree.

Mr Cameron did precisely the opposite; he didn’t rush to regulate, but he did provide moral leadership. As a result, common sense prevailed and the page has since been removed from the site.

Share this article

But in this case, the issue is really something more than freedom of speech, which is so often the defence used by providers of platforms, such as Facebook, to justify internet content.

Yes, the internet is a wonderful thing, providing access to a wealth of information that was unimaginable even a decade ago. But there is a darker side, too.

We must protect the right of people to say what they wish, however unpalatable it may be. That more than 30,000 people apparently signed Moat’s tribute page – many of their messages were said to be deeply misogynistic and even an incitement to violence against the police – is something that we should be concerned about.

Even a few decades ago, people would have been totally appalled by the comments. But now they are seen as ironic or normal.

Angry: Prime Minister David Cameron voiced his disappointment with the setting up of a tribute page on Facebook to killer Raoul Moat - it has since been taken down

The internet, it seems, has become the Wild West of the written word. It is unregulated – or rather, the regulation does not appear to be enforced – in a way that would seem bizarre for any other form of media. As it stands, publishers, the printed Press and broadcasters are strictly regulated as to what they can say.

Any columnist or commentator expressing some of the sentiments on
Moat’s tribute page would quickly – and justifiably – find themselves
facing the wrath of the Press Complaints Commission or Ofcom, or even
criminal investigation for ­incitement to violence.

Yet advocates of an unregulated internet commonly argue that blogs
and social networking sites are no more than ‘e-age’ ­versions of a pub
conversation. This is disingenuous. Rumours and gossip, slur and libel
can be put up on the internet for anyone to see, and whizz round the
world in seconds at the click of a mouse.

‘Going viral’ gives them the power to shred business, harm lives and ruin reputations. Only
last week, a judge warned jurors against researching cases on the
internet after a teenager was found guilty of contempt of court for
texting false rumours about a defendant to a member of the jury hearing
his case.

It is damaging enough that people’s reputations
can be unfairly maligned by internet gossip. But baseless rumours can
leak into mainstream media.

It has been suggested that
wall-to-wall coverage of the Moat case was influenced by views
expressed on Facebook. When facts are thin on the ground, the mob
mentality of some internet sites risks creating a false impression that
the views of a vociferous minority are widely held or that fiction is
fact.

Ask France’s First Lady and her husband Nicolas Sarkozy
about the power of internet ­chatter. Earlier this year, speculation
appeared on the social networking site Twitter that Carla Bruni had
enjoyed a close relationship with a musician. This was rapidly relayed
on other websites, and within a few days had appeared in newspapers and
magazines in France, and picked up around the world.

Since
the run-up to the World Cup, the web has been awash with lurid chatter
about foot­ballers, High Court super-injunctions and sex scandals.

This
is where the analogy of the internet as giant pub conversation really
breaks down. Pub conversations can be easily forgotten and brushed off
– or the landlord can throw a boorish, rude customer out of the pub.

Others
say the Raoul Moat internet shrine was no different from the flowers
and cards left at the site of his death. Yet the cards and flowers are
seen by few and will soon be cleared away. But once on the internet,
the genie, so to speak, is out of the bottle. However, we know the internet is not immune from the law.

Two
years ago, company director Mathew Firsht sued over a mischievous
Facebook entry. Retired teacher Jim Murray was awarded damages over a
former pupil’s insults on Friends Reunited.

There have been successful
prosecutions for copyright and data protection violations.

But they seem rare, and we appear resigned to applying different standards where the internet is concerned.

Part
of the difficulty is that the worldwide web is just that – a
jurisdictional nightmare where communications cross national boundaries
and multiple time zones. Add to this the pace at which the technology
develops and it is clear that internet regulation will continue to be a
thorny issue long after this media storm has blown itself out.

Doubtless,
the Moat scandal will not be the last to shock us. But it has been
instructive. In a sense, the internet holds up a mirror to our society.
It shows us some things we might have preferred not to see.

But
draconian legislation is not the answer. The laws that frame freedom of
speech in books, newspapers, magazines and on television – copyright,
libel and incitement – all apply to the internet.

It is
simply that it is a new and little-understood medium and there is
little attempt, in general, to apply the law. And yet it can be done,
as the record industry showed when it successfully prosecuted over
illegal free downloads.

On top of the existing laws, there is
the little-known Electronic Trading EC directive of 2002, which gives
all of us the power to fight back.

The directive gives
providers of sites such as Facebook immunity from prosecution only if
they act promptly to remove offending articles from the web when a
complaint is made. Thus, if we want a ‘cleaner’ internet, it is up to
us as individuals to complain about offensive material. Websites such
as Facebook make it a simple matter to do so and they are compelled by
law to comply.

In the digital age, Government cannot
legislate for every problem. On the net, as in real life, it is the
responsible actions of individual people and communities that
ultimately create a good ­society – not government regulation.

There are laws and regulations, but we don’t obey them only because there is a policeman on every corner .

It
seems our Prime Minister has instinctively understood this new
challenge and provided moral leadership, rather than ill thought-out
legislation. It is up to us as a society of internet users to use the
existing laws to get the worldwide web we would like to see.

Share or comment on this article:

Raoul Moat: Facebook has proved that we can bring law and order to the Wild West Web